Buzsaw writes:
1. Islam fundamentalists of Islam, unlike the IRA do not fight. They walk or drive themselves as lethal bombs into innocent crowds, buildings, factories, government buildings, busses et al so as to kill and destroy maximum number of people and as much property as they can. As president how would you deal with this dilema?
The IRA did not fight either, the murdered people, destroyed property and maintained their organised crime operations through bloody intimidation. As for suicide bombing, I'm far from convinced that a method that kills your operatives is actually more effective - after all, you can only do it once. Had the July 7th bombers simply left bombs on the undergroud they could have planted multiple devices and lived to plant more on another day. And compared to the IRA, Islamic terrorists groups are highly incompetent, do you remember the Glasgow airport attack? Laughable. I don't remember the IRA ever doing something so ineffective.
Islamic terror is not a greater threat to the UK than the IRA were. Even the IRA were frankly not that big a threat. Terrorism is effective not because it actually causes harm but because of how we respond to it.
Islams holy book advocates world domination whereas the IRA did not. As president what would you do to prevent Islam's ambition of world conquest? The thrust is first to secure the Mideast by wiping out Israel and dealing with the US barrier to world conquest. If they can accomplish these two objectives they're well on their way to an Islamic world.
Islam cannot conquer the world; only countries and empires can do that - and there is no sign of any Islamic nation being capable of doing that. Or even wanting to do that.
As president would you let Israel fall?
Israel deserves no more special protection than other nations; as president I would support severe sanctions against Israel until they withdraw from the occupied territories.
™ Version 4.2